Search for: "v. JONES" Results 6781 - 6800 of 9,905
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2015, 8:34 am by Fabrizio di Piazza
” Arguing the line-item veto case as Solicitor General immediately after the Supreme Court announced Clinton v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 1:40 pm by Joe Palazzolo
V”;74. 2010 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A608055, LicensePlate No. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
Free-riding in MDLs, steering committees as old boy networks, and other things observed when a defense lawyer attends a plaintiff’s-side conference [Stephen McConnell, Drug and Device Law] Not entirely unrelated: Monopolies and gatekeepers in multidistrict litigation [Elizabeth Chamblee Burch/Mass Tort Prof first, second] 9th Circuit: consumers weren’t deceived by a dispenser whose design left some lip balm in the tube [Paul Hastings, California Appellate blog] “Lawsuit… [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 1:31 pm by Steve Eder
Supreme Court ruling in January in U.S. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 6:28 am
Jones, University of Massachusetts-Amherst Serena Mayeri, University of Pennsylvania Law School Mae C. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 10:39 am
. -- contains explosive allegations against the executives and quotes extensively from e-mails in which the executives allegedly discuss backdating their own stock options....The complaint, Morillo v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 12:23 am by J
One, obviously, is with regard to the requirement of section 21 (4), Housing Act 1988 that a notice requiring possession served after the end of a fixed term tenancy must require possession after a day which is the last day of one of the periods of the tenancy (although, in practice, one imagines that a notice with a "saving clause" (Lower Street Properties v Jones) would avoid this problem). [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 8:45 pm
The Voluntary Trade Blog reports that FTC Commissioner William Kovacic, in a recent interview with Dow Jones, harshly critized the Department of Justice for advising the Supreme Court not to take the FTC v. [read post]